That Mohammed is an example of conduct for every Muslim is no problem, because

Carn

Graduate Poster
C
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
1,340
Mohammed was not the murderous, raping, greedy, women-hating warmonger you irrational islamophobes depict him as,

but he was a for his time quite modern ethically above average 7th century leader in peace and war and therefore his ethical conduct as a 7th century leader in peace and war being at least theologically an example to be followed by every Muslim is realy nothing to worry about, because

...



Is there anybody to fill the ... with any semi-reasonable intelligeble text?


Cause the above is in a sense a summary of some discussions i had; some "islam apologists" tries at length to convince me that Mohammed was not that blood thirsty monster, but just one a bit above average run-of-the-mill 7th century ruler.

Somehow the "islam apologists" think they have gained some ground by arguing for this; but they never come around to fill the ...

And frankly, if one point something billion people would seriously take even the ethically most flawless military and political ruler the 7th century has to offer as an ethical example to be followed, i would be scared to death.

For example in some frankish war between brothers there might have been some rival offspring being killed by smashing him against a rock; the war between east rome and persia sounds like a real bloodfeast with guerilla wars and cities plundered. And in china some dynasty replaced another with the former ruler being strangled to death and in the following rebellious years a lot of heads being cut off.

No, to everybody, please do not take any 7th century ruler and warleader as a ethical example, neither the "good" ones nor the "bad" ones.


So i am realy at loss, how an "islam apologist" could fill the above dots; realy, totally no clue whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
They can't fill in the gaps. What normally happens is they protest for a short while about 'context' and when they fail utterly to make a coherent argument they fall back on the default apologist argument and label you an 'Islamophobe'. As an 'Islamophobe' your views are by definition irrational and therefore they win. As an added benefit you are now a proven bigot and and all round unpleasant character.
 
"Here is a strawman, now defend it or I'll declare victory..."

ETA:
Carn said:
some "islam apologists" tries at length to convince me that Mohammed was not that blood thirsty monster, but just one a bit above average run-of-the-mill 7th century ruler.

Somehow the "islam apologists" think they have gained some ground by arguing for this; but they never come around to fill the ...

And frankly, if one point something billion people would seriously take even the ethically most flawless military and political ruler the 7th century has to offer as an ethical example to be followed, i would be scared to death.
Click to expand...

One does not exclude the other... for most of human history, rulers were despots. Mohammed could have been (above) average for his time, and a complete monster by modern standards at the same time...

Do you have any cites from the 'apologists' you talk about that claim Mohammed is a worthy example and should be emulated?
 
Last edited:
Carn said:
Mohammed was not the murderous, raping, greedy, women-hating warmonger you irrational islamophobes depict him as,

... snipped for brevity ...

So i am realy at loss, how an "islam apologist" could fill the above dots; realy, totally no clue whatsoever.
Click to expand...

My advice is for you to stay clueless.

After all, since religion and god concepts can mean whatever one wants religion and god concepts to mean, therefore religion and god concepts have no meaning.
 
baron said:
They can't fill in the gaps. What normally happens is they protest for a short while about 'context' and when they fail utterly to make a coherent argument they fall back on the default apologist argument and label you an 'Islamophobe'. As an 'Islamophobe' your views are by definition irrational and therefore they win. As an added benefit you are now a proven bigot and and all round unpleasant character.
Click to expand...

Can you provide an example for these here theys?
 
Porpoise of Life said:
"Here is a strawman, now defend it or I'll declare victory..."

ETA:

One does not exclude the other... for most of human history, rulers were despots. Mohammed could have been (above) average for his time, and a complete monster by modern standards at the same time...

Do you have any cites from the 'apologists' you talk about that claim Mohammed is a worthy example and should be emulated?
Click to expand...


Most certainly and those former leaders are not held up as an extreme example of goodness. That is the problem we have, that modern day Muslims extoll Mohammed as the perfect prophet, so all the words that came out of his mouth, (straight from God), had to be right and his actions without blemish.

Christianity refers to Jesus of course, (the meek and mild one), and any not so nice things about his behaviour, (killing fig trees and pigs), are dismissed as allegorical, so he emerges unblemished.
 
Thor 2 said:
Most certainly and those former leaders are not held up as an extreme example of goodness. That is the problem we have, that modern day Muslims extoll Mohammed as the perfect prophet, so all the words that came out of his mouth, (straight from God), had to be right and his actions without blemish.

Christianity refers to Jesus of course, (the meek and mild one), and any not so nice things about his behaviour, (killing fig trees and pigs), are dismissed as allegorical, so he emerges unblemished.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the behaviour of Jesus (for the three documented years of his life) is eminently acceptable, even by today's standards. Killing a fig tree and a bunch of pigs is a bit 'off' (although you would have to believe in magic and demons respectively to think he actually did it), but raping a child and killing 800 Jews is not somewhat less acceptable, it's founded in fact.
 
Last edited:
David is perhaps the "greatest" king in Jewish history, and Jewish rabbinical tradition sometimes treats him as a prefigurement of the Messiah. Yet even in his case, there are events that don't sit right to me. Especially so is how at the end of this life he makes some requests for Solomon to fulfill after David's death - namely that there were some people who David didn't kill because he wasn't politically strong enough, or whom he promised not to kill, and he asked Solomon to kill them after David died.
 
rakovsky said:
David is perhaps the "greatest" king in Jewish history, and Jewish rabbinical tradition sometimes treats him as a prefigurement of the Messiah. Yet even in his case, there are events that don't sit right to me. Especially so is how at the end of this life he makes some requests for Solomon to fulfill after David's death - namely that there were some people who David didn't kill because he wasn't politically strong enough, or whom he promised not to kill, and he asked Solomon to kill them after David died.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the not very polite Bathsheba thing ( related in Hallelujah - the Cohen one,,,,)
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Do you have any cites from the 'apologists' you talk about that claim Mohammed is a worthy example and should be emulated?
Click to expand...

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong

"Muhammad became the archetypal example of that perfect submission to the divine, and Muslims, as we shall see, would attempt to conform to this standard in their spiritual and social lives. Muhammad was never venerated as a divine figure, but he was held to be the Perfect Man. His surrender to God had been so complete that he had transformed society and enabled the Arabs to live together in harmony. The world Islam is etymologically related to salam (peace), and in these early years Islam did promote cohesion and concord.

Islam: A Short History (2000), Chapter 1: Beginnings
"

"Perfect Man" and "standard in their ... social lives" should count as worthy example to emulate; additionally, whether to strangle one's daughter to death because she kissed the wrong guy or whether to slaughter the neighbor including his wife and children because they abandoned Islam is also a matter of "social live".

That Armstrong qualifies as apologist should be apparent from the other quotes.
 
Carn said:
Mohammed was not the murderous, raping, greedy, women-hating warmonger you irrational islamophobes depict him as,

but he was a for his time quite modern ethically above average 7th century leader in peace and war and therefore his ethical conduct as a 7th century leader in peace and war being at least theologically an example to be followed by every Muslim is realy nothing to worry about, because

...



Is there anybody to fill the ... with any semi-reasonable intelligeble text?


Cause the above is in a sense a summary of some discussions i had; some "islam apologists" tries at length to convince me that Mohammed was not that blood thirsty monster, but just one a bit above average run-of-the-mill 7th century ruler.

Somehow the "islam apologists" think they have gained some ground by arguing for this; but they never come around to fill the ...

And frankly, if one point something billion people would seriously take even the ethically most flawless military and political ruler the 7th century has to offer as an ethical example to be followed, i would be scared to death.

For example in some frankish war between brothers there might have been some rival offspring being killed by smashing him against a rock; the war between east rome and persia sounds like a real bloodfeast with guerilla wars and cities plundered. And in china some dynasty replaced another with the former ruler being strangled to death and in the following rebellious years a lot of heads being cut off.

No, to everybody, please do not take any 7th century ruler and warleader as a ethical example, neither the "good" ones nor the "bad" ones.


So i am realy at loss, how an "islam apologist" could fill the above dots; realy, totally no clue whatsoever.
Click to expand...

It is what they do - what all of them do to excuse whichever slime they want to look good. Like today with excusers for trumpf.
 
Regarding Jesus, David and other religious figures being potential examples to emulate:

1. Jesus criminal record according to today laws in most so called free countries would be limited to some charges for property damage (the pigs and some other minor stuff), one case of trespass/non-serious assault (flogging the money changers out of the Temple; that is comparable to what some demonstrators often do today and does not receive severe punishments), a lot of civil lawsuits regarding defamation (pharisees being called snakes, etc. might have a case for defamation) and in some countries potential violations of laws regarding graveyards/dead bodies by himself or his disciples (depending upon actual historical account of the so-called resurrection; at least reporting the authorities your own resurrection is minimum, cause otherwise they waste resources when hunting non-existant grave robbers); anyone taking Jesus as a direct example for conduct would be mostly an annoyance.

2. Except for Jesus there are no claims that the other named persons are to be emulated in nearly everything or in everything; for example no Jew would suggest that David sending one of his commanders to his planned death with direct orders for others to retreat and leave him alone, so he could get hold of the commander's wife, is anything but immoral; even David himself admits so later.

3. whatabouttism
 
Carn said:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong

"Muhammad became the archetypal example of that perfect submission to the divine, and Muslims, as we shall see, would attempt to conform to this standard in their spiritual and social lives. Muhammad was never venerated as a divine figure, but he was held to be the Perfect Man. His surrender to God had been so complete that he had transformed society and enabled the Arabs to live together in harmony. The world Islam is etymologically related to salam (peace), and in these early years Islam did promote cohesion and concord.

Islam: A Short History (2000), Chapter 1: Beginnings
"
Click to expand...

I've seen that quote before and it amused me that even a weapons-grade Islam apologist such as Armstrong can't bring herself to go the whole hog, because the idea that contemporary Islamic practice "promotes cohesion and concord" is simply too absurd for the educated brain to entertain.
 
Thor 2 said:
Most certainly and those former leaders are not held up as an extreme example of goodness. That is the problem we have, that modern day Muslims extoll Mohammed as the perfect prophet, so all the words that came out of his mouth, (straight from God), had to be right and his actions without blemish.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I'd say they are wrong. About the metaphysical stuff, and about calling a vicious warlord the most perfect human ever.

But Carn claims that he's talked to people on here who are apologists for Islam, who defend the Islamic view of Mohammed and deny that perfect emulation of 7th century mores would spell trouble in the modern world.

That's not my experience. Ususally, some poster is trying to provide some historical context, which is dismissed as apologia.

Carn said:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong

"Muhammad became the archetypal example of that perfect submission to the divine, and Muslims, as we shall see, would attempt to conform to this standard in their spiritual and social lives. Muhammad was never venerated as a divine figure, but he was held to be the Perfect Man. His surrender to God had been so complete that he had transformed society and enabled the Arabs to live together in harmony. The world Islam is etymologically related to salam (peace), and in these early years Islam did promote cohesion and concord.

Islam: A Short History (2000), Chapter 1: Beginnings
"

"Perfect Man" and "standard in their ... social lives" should count as worthy example to emulate; additionally, whether to strangle one's daughter to death because she kissed the wrong guy or whether to slaughter the neighbor including his wife and children because they abandoned Islam is also a matter of "social live".

That Armstrong qualifies as apologist should be apparent from the other quotes.
Click to expand...
She wrote a book on the history of Islam, and summarizes Islamic thought on Mohammed. I don't see how that implies that she agrees with it.
Or is it your opinion that authors on religion and history should always let the reader know when their own opinion differs from that of the tradition they're writing about, preferably in the same paragraph?
I'm not familiar with her writings, so you may be correct in your comclusion, but I don't see how her saying that Muslims see their prohet as a perfect man in a book on the history of Islam is apologia.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
She wrote a book on the history of Islam, and summarizes Islamic thought on Mohammed. I don't see how that implies that she agrees with it.
Or is it your opinion that authors on religion and history should always let the reader know when their own opinion differs from that of the tradition they're writing about, preferably in the same paragraph?
I'm not familiar with her writings, so you may be correct in your comclusion, but I don't see how her saying that Muslims see their prohet as a perfect man in a book on the history of Islam is apologia.
Click to expand...

My claim was only that apologist for Islam exist, which admit that Mohammed is for Muslims an example of conduct to emulate and try some unconvincing arguments why this is no real problem.

Hence, what i showed is sufficient for my question, as it is sufficient if the apologist agrees that Mohammed is for Muslims an example of good conduct and not that the apologist himself/herself thinks Mohammed is an example of good conduct.

The islamic tradition is that the 7th century political, military and religious leader Mohammed is an example to emulate in one's personal life.

Some so called Islamophobes think that this is a recipe for disaster, as Mohammed's behaviour supposedly was only marginally above inhuman monster.

Some apologist counter, that it wasn't just marginally above monster, but actually above what was standard for 7th century political and military leaders; i would like to understand, what the plan behind such an argument might be, cause i do not see much weakening of the so called Islamophobe's argument, if Mohammed was slightly above smashing young children's heads on rocks cause they were potential rivals to some throne.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
But Carn claims that he's talked to people on here who are apologists for Islam, who defend the Islamic view of Mohammed and deny that perfect emulation of 7th century mores would spell trouble in the modern world.
Click to expand...

In case nobody realized, the question posed in this thread could even be answered if no such apologist existed.

Because either one can suggest some convincing way argue from the premises:

- Mohammed is an example of conduct to be emulated by Muslims; and

- Mohammed was no monster but a political and military leader ethically above the 7th century norm;


a "no need to worry about that much" or nobody can suggest such an argument.


That is not dependent upon me presenting evidence for the existance of apologist defending the second premise or me presenting evidence that i have had discussions with such apologist.
 
Occasionally I see an atheist arguing the point that fundimentalist Christians are right about Christianity and the liberal Christians are wrong. To which I generally say who cares, I'll side with the folks that aren't ********. Same thing here, if a Muslim wants Islam to be the religion of peace and Mohommed to be a nice modern man, more power to them.
 
Carn said:
In case nobody realized, the question posed in this thread could even be answered if no such apologist existed.

Because either one can suggest some convincing way argue from the premises:

- Mohammed is an example of conduct to be emulated by Muslims; and

- Mohammed was no monster but a political and military leader ethically above the 7th century norm;


a "no need to worry about that much" or nobody can suggest such an argument.


That is not dependent upon me presenting evidence for the existance of apologist defending the second premise or me presenting evidence that i have had discussions with such apologist.
Click to expand...

But those apologists who, according to you claim that there is nothing problematic about emulating some medieval warlord, are the only ones who can answer your question.

Because the rest of us don't agree with the premise.

If you believe that isn't necessary for answering the question: feel free to answer it yourself.
 
ahhell said:
Same thing here, if a Muslim wants Islam to be the religion of peace and Mohommed to be a nice modern man, more power to them.
Click to expand...

Those Muslims have nothing to fear from the Atheist, but a great deal to fear from other Muslims.
 
Carn said:
Mohammed was not the murderous, raping, greedy, women-hating warmonger you irrational islamophobes depict him as,

but he was a for his time quite modern ethically above average 7th century leader in peace and war and therefore his ethical conduct as a 7th century leader in peace and war being at least theologically an example to be followed by every Muslim is realy nothing to worry about, because

...
Click to expand...

Because nothing. Whether he was ethical and good for the 7th century might be interesting from a historical perspective but when trying to find out where his teachings sit in our world today, of course we're going to compare his morals to our own, so his ethics relative to those of his own day are irrelevant.
 
Carn said:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong

"Muhammad became the archetypal example of that perfect submission to the divine, and Muslims, as we shall see, would attempt to conform to this standard in their spiritual and social lives. Muhammad was never venerated as a divine figure, but he was held to be the Perfect Man. His surrender to God had been so complete that he had transformed society and enabled the Arabs to live together in harmony. The world Islam is etymologically related to salam (peace), and in these early years Islam did promote cohesion and concord.

Islam: A Short History (2000), Chapter 1: Beginnings
"

"Perfect Man" and "standard in their ... social lives" should count as worthy example to emulate; additionally, whether to strangle one's daughter to death because she kissed the wrong guy or whether to slaughter the neighbor including his wife and children because they abandoned Islam is also a matter of "social live".

That Armstrong qualifies as apologist should be apparent from the other quotes.
Click to expand...
In line 8 of this post (as it appears on my screen and I have bolded and reddened) is that the word in their text (wikis)??? If so they need a proofreader!!!

eta Note it is line 4 now - not my fault.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom